Hypocrisy Watch

In a timely reminder that politics is glamour for ugly people, sports for neurasthenics, and Pin the Tail on the Donkey for jackasses, A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch reminds us that the biggest parliamentary hypocrites in these interminable End Days of health care "reform" are the people most loudly crying "hypocrite":

Before cramming the measure down the throats of the American public, […] perhaps congressional leaders should consider these important words from a Monday New York Times editorial:

"A largely missing ingredient in the debate … showed up on the streets of major cities over the weekend as crowds of peaceable protesters marched in a demand to be heard. They represented what appears to be a large segment of the American public that remains unconvinced" by the administration's plan, began the piece entitled "A Stirring in the Nation."

It continued: "The protesters are raising some nuanced questions … about the premises, cost, and aftermath" of the direction in which Congress seemed to be headed. It concluded by noting that "millions of Americans who did not march share the [same] concerns…. These protests are the tip of a far broader sense of concern and lack of confidence in the path … that seems to lie ahead."

A sympathetic portrait of the Tea Party activists who demonstrated in Washington on 9/12? A description of all the town-hall dissents against Obamacare? Not quite. That editorial appeared Monday, Jan. 20, 2003, and was written about protests against the war in Iraq that was then only looming.

As for Republicans,

Having used the reconciliation process to achieve their own legislative goals 16 of the past 22 times, they're now denouncing the fundamental unfairness of the procedure with purple-faced rage, and explaining that even though they, too, employed a version of the Slaughter Solution—known then as the Gephardt Rule—to raise the debt ceiling between 1995 and 2001, that was, somehow, different.

As Roll Call reports, fiscal conservatives raised such a stink about the Gephardt Rule that the GOP dropped the practice nine years ago. But it had proved such a handy maneuver that they resurrected it in 2003—to the great amusement of Democrats who renamed it the Hastert Rule, after the House speaker at the time, Dennis Hastert. Now conservatives are tying themselves into knots trying to explain why the Slaughter Solution for health care would be obscenely unconstitutional, whereas the Hastert Rule was parliamentary S.O.P. […]

Conservatives who just a couple of years ago thought the imperial presidency and the unitary executive were dandy ideas are now dusting off their copies of The Federalist Papers to bone up on the virtues of limited government. And liberals who once fretted with The Times' Adam Cohen that "even a thriving democracy like America borders on tyranny" now sigh wistfully over the gawdawful inconvenience of a two-party system.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

In fairness, the Republicans used reconciliation on things like raising the debt ceiling and bills relating to workaday theft that goes on Congress every day. Using it on health care is the equivalent of the Republicans using it to pass Social Security Privatization or the Iraq War resolution. Sometimes a difference in quantity becomes so large it is a difference in quality.

Republicans should have thought about the possibility of Democrats taking the whole thing to another level back when they were doing it. And while they certainly screamed like stuck pigs over Democratic filibusters and thought about eliminating them, they never did. I also don’t recall (and if there were such things I would like to see them) conservative pundits openly calling for an end to equal state representation in the Senate or waxing philosophical about authoritarian regime’s like China’s ability to get things done.

Having used the reconciliation process to achieve their own legislative goals 16 of the past 22 times,

Flattens all legislation into meaningless mush, admitting no distinction between a ministerial debt ceiling measure and a massive restructuring of the economy and the relationship between the State and its citizens subjects.

Same thing, really, with the Slaughter Solution – a parliamentary maneuver that has, in the past, been used to adopt Senate amendments to House bills is now being used in reverse, to adopt House amendments to Senate bills. The difference, of course, is that the former use of “deeming” rules was purely procedural – the House had already approved the underlying bill, so there was no Constitutional issue. Here, though, there is a Constitutional issue, because the House has not adopted the underlying bill.

The Reason staff, being die hard cosmos, can’t admit that the Dems are ever worse than Republicans. They would lose their cards and stop getting invited to the meetings. So to avoid that, they act like a sleazy maneuver to pass a debt ceiling increase is the same as using the sleazy maneuver to totally restructure health care.

Same thing, really, with the Slaughter Solution – a parliamentary maneuver that has, in the past, been used to adopt Senate amendments to House bills is now being used in reverse, to adopt House amendments to Senate bills. The difference, of course, is that the former use of “deeming” rules was purely procedural – the House had already approved the underlying bill, so there was no Constitutional issue.Buy Facebook Fans Here, though, there is a Constitutional issue, because the House has not adopted the underlying bill.

And hell, you can look at the reconciliation votes and see that the vast majority were, in fact, budget bills. Of the rest, most of them had a super majority and were just passed under reconciliation because it was the end of the term (the welfare reform bill was passed three times until Clinton finally signed it), and the only other exceptions are tax bills.

I like the poster of both Adolf Hitler of the Nazi Germany and Former president of the United States of America, George Bush aligned in one with a remarkable quote saying “Same shit, Different ******”. where does the author got the idea.However if I am asked whether I agree with it, I would say “NO!” There is a reason for it because I do think they both were feeding the people shits after all but they were different! So I would say “Different shit, Different ****!”

Facts are facts. The Democrats are trying one of the most outrageous authoritarian maneuvers in US history and all the Reason staff can say is “Republicans did it to” never mentioning that maybe raising the debt ceiling is a little bit different than Obamacare. It is classic Reason. They just can’t help themselves.

Paleos are religious? I thought they just hated black people and wanted those damn kids to get off their lawn. As apposed to Cosmos who love black people and want to have weasel farms in their apartments.

Attorneys will often discover typos or other minor errors in contracts after they are executed. It is a common, even universal, practice, to simply “swap pages” in the executed contract to correct the error, rather than re-execute the damn thing.

Reconciliation and “deeming” have been used in the past for the legislative equivalent of swapping pages. What Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are trying to do is “swap pages” to change the price and terms of service.

“This is the new standard for legitimacy? The Republicans did it too?”

Exactly. It is a stupid and destructive point. The issue at hand is “is the use of reconciliation legitimate”. The fact that some of those objecting to it are hypocritical says nothing about that question. All it does is obscure the substance of the argument and make it into the usual political horse race story. Since political horse race and “gottcha” stories are the only things the media is capable of covering, it is not surprising this is their focus.

Sure, but let’s queue these things chronologically. First, return the money to all the people that didn’t want Social Security, Medicare, or any Great Society welfare programs. Then, you guys can have your share of whatever’s left.

Addendum: The Republican members of the House Budget Committee have a three-page response to the CBO analysis here (PDF). In addition to the points I mentioned earlier today, they note several other tricks that the Democrats use to undercount spending and exaggerate savings, including frontloading taxes and Medicare cuts while backloading insurance subsidies. “When you strip away the double-counting of Medicare cuts, the so-called savings from Social Security payroll taxes, and the CLASS Act [premiums for long-term care insurance],” their analysis says, “the deficit increases by $433 billion over the first ten years.” Promotional ProductsPromotional Products

All the people in this country have some rights to be respected. I do not think that if something was in another country things would be different. But these politicians have forgotten who elected them. This social class and put her shoulder to their welfare. So They must apologize.vanzari tinctura propolis